Opinions of a Wandering Waif

This is an article that examines what makes life meaningful.  It was posted at my board, in a discussion about abortion and personhood. 

IMO, the article establishes, in its own terms, very clearly, that a fetus cannot be a person, before 24 weeks:

A quick answer is that we need receptors in the skin to detect threats to tissue and those receptors need to be connected to parts of the brain that can interpret the threat. The receptors, the connections and the relevant parts of the brain are all developed by about 24 weeks gestational age. Thus the fetus can feel pain after 24 weeks but not before. You can perform this same trick with respect to other sensations such as vision, hearing, taste and so forth.

[…]

My retort to the idea that the brain does it can be stated simply – whatever it is that nervous tissue does I am quite certain that it does not feel because cells cannot feel. Only persons can feel.

[…]

The beginning of explicit intent is there in the act that now picks out specific stimuli and organises the various responses into a form of action. Initially, it is the stimulus and caregiver that controls the infant’s action through interaction and reward. The intent is explicit for the caregiver but also implicit in the scenario. As the infant increasingly absorbs the rules of the game she is able to shift her focus from the toy to the caregiver and to herself thus stepping between different points of view within the act. The infant begins to emerge to herself as she absorbs the implicit intent of the action and adopts the viewpoint of each external element.

The outline of an ‘I’ (or a self) develops. It is this ‘I’ who experiences.

[…]

I think Derbyshire is also saying that until the concept of “I” develops, the critter is on shaky grounds in its bid for personhood, too. 

I remember reading of some cultures that don’t consider a born human a person until after the age of 3.  And in Judaism, we may not ritually mourn the death of an infant, less than a month old.

Arguing that a woman has no right to rid her body of a parasitic clump of insensate cells is misogynistic.  After 24 weeks, there is a sliver of a chance that there is concern for the fetus, but before that, and most certainly to claim its personhood at conception, is just bullshit to cover the misogyny. 

—emphasis mine ~ waif

sisterhoodispowerful:

Rah, rah, sis boom bah: Silsbee High School in Texas wants their cheerleaders smiling, energetic, and willing to cheer for their rapists by name. Go team!

H.S., a Silsbee student, reported being raped by Rakheem Bolton with the help of two of his friends, a fellow student and athletic star. In…

This is truly outrageous, but it certainly illustrates the lack of respect in which women and girls are held.  She’s just a “mouthpiece” for the schools cheers…not too far a stretch from that to she’s just a vagina for the rapists and an incubator for the fetus, but never, never is she a person in her own right.  Her value is only in how she serves the school, the man, the fetus. ~waif

(Source: slutever--forever)

Donald Symons (via cocknbull)

BUT IT IS A LIE THAT THE RTL WANTS FEWER ABORTIONS. PERHAPS THE MORE CORRECT NAME FOR THEM IS ‘RIGHT TO LIE’.

How can I say that?

RTLs need abortion the way fire fighters need fires.

Picketing an abortion clinic to try to stop abortions is as effective as picketing an airport to try to get more people to vacation locally. It’s all show. And it is a cruel, bullying, vicious, smug and self-righteous show.

We all know that the RTL movement has enough politicians (mostly Republican) who vote lock step with them that they could change women’s reproductive health care overnight. All they would need to do is to support a few measures that are already supported by most Democrats. Here in no particular order, are a few simple things they could support that would be guaranteed to result in fewer untimely pregnancies, and hence fewer abortions in no specific order:

1. Make long-acting, effective reversible birth control methods like IUDs available free of charge to any women who want them. These birth control methods are effective for 5 to 10 years and don’t require a woman to remember to do anything in order to be protected from pregnancy. They can be used by women of any age. If a woman wants to get pregnant, she simply has the IUD removed and her normal fertility returns. This birth control method is widely used in Europe, but quite expensive and less frequently used in this country.

2. Cover all reproductive health care including all methods of birth control, infertility, tubal ligation, and vasectomy, under affordable health insurance.

3. Create excellent and affordable childcare so that women who want to have children can also make a living to support them.

4. Make sure young people learn how to create successful relationships as well as how to be responsible with their sexuality. That will give them the tools to create healthy families and be good parents with enough resources to care for their kids when the time is right.

5. Promote vasectomy as a very safe and inexpensive method of permanent birth control for men. This would be especially helpful for couples who have completed their families so that a late and unexpected pregnancy doesn’t through everyone into emotional turmoil.

6. Increase research into developing safer, more effective and long lasting methods of birth control.

7. Make sure the Morning After Treatment is easily available, inexpensive, and covered by health care insurance.

8. Require by law that all pharmacies either fill prescriptions for birth control and Morning After Treatment, or else inform over the phone, in advertisements, and by posted signs that they are Anti Choice Pharmacies, and the location of the nearest pharmacy that respect a woman’s choices.

Of course it’s a grand hoax.  It’s not about a right to life, never has been.  It’s about controlling women’s sexuality. It’s about keeping women vulnerable, hobbled, and living in fear.  It’s about punishing women with children by making the care of children damned near impossible, as a single mother.

So, of course, it’s about making and keeping male protectors necessary. ~ waif

(Source: azspot)

caramelbaloney:

ryking:

…

Too frequently, the words “privilege” and “derailing” are thrown out to avoid addressing valid points and questions (though certainly not all points are valid). However, I’m unclear what that issue has to do with the first paragraph. The post is tagged “privilege myth”, so if the…

(Source: diadoumenos)

- A summary of what every girl that doesn’t want to have children goes through.

This is an example of how women in society are thought to be only for reproduction. Some may say this statement is radical thinking. It’s not. If you’ve ever been the girl/woman that doesn’t want to have kids, you are looked down upon. People see you as cold, distant and greedy. The fact that you are making the formal decision to not have kids is, to them, unacceptable. It must be something that you have not thought-out and something that you do not have enough expierience in order to make a decision on. You are greedy for not wanting to have something living inside of you for nine months, for not wanting to have radical changes to your body because of this something, for not wanting to have to go through labour, for not wanting to spend a year off work supporting this something, and for not wanting/have the resources to spend up to and beyond ten thousands dollars a year on this something.

And this pressure for this something, is mostly (not all - but mostly) on women. If a man doesn’t have a child then hey, whatever, cool. He’s a charming bachelor. There will be no need to ask him questions like, “So how’s your love life?” and “The clock’s ticking!” and “Have you ever thought about being a single mother? Doing it on your own?”

SOME TIMES WE JUST DON’T WANT TO HAVE A FUCKING BABY.

(via thefb-of-i)

I’m 25, almost 26 and this is my life, every day of my life, every phone call with my mother, random relatives who ask about it, people at work who like to say “There’s something in the water, every woman who has worked here has gotten pregnant, it’ll catch you too”. Even dating, I put on my profile that I don’t want children and they’ll message me “No children….ever?” or “I have a kid, is that going to be a problem for you?” Just pervasive and condescending as if I have not given any thought to it AND that the thoughts I have given to it are the wrong thoughts.

(via nola-darling)

This. Just. All of this.

(via reservoirpuppy)

Sorry to see this still hasn’t changed, since I was getting this shit, in my twenties…that was 30 years ago.  Even from my mother, who was otherwise a rabid feminist, I’d get the whine that I didn’t make her a grandmother. Ah, well.

For you younguns, I can tell you that I do not regret not having children, I still see nothing to recommend them.  Don’t regret not marrying, either.  Don’t let the propaganda get to you, life as a childless single is pretty damned nice. :) ~ waif

The Most Important Thing That Men Who Have Sex With Women Need to Know | Charlie Glickman (via technicolourx)

(via slutever--forever)

brave-slut:

thatbridgeisonfire:

theangryhippie:

Having just seen the ignorant, obsessive letter to the girls of Tumblr from the boys of Tumblr, I thought I would rant for a second about the Trademark “Nice Guys” who claim that they are always overlooked.

First off, this is one of the most dishonest and asshat moves that you could perpetrate for a couple of reasons. 1) It puts forth this idea that you are sort of owed something because you have been there for her. You have listened to her heartache, therefore you are entitled to be looked at differently. But you won’t be. Because the whole time you are playing the role of friend desperately longing for the day when she will look at you and see the “real you” she is looking at her friend. Someone who is supposed to be there without any agendas other than being there for their friend.

Which brings me full circle to my next reason why you will never get the woman you are longing for. 2) BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING TO HER!! Pretending to be someone’s friend, offering them advice (which comes from an agenda-ridden psyche) on their problems and relationships when you are ultimately pining for them, is dishonest. It is skewed advice that you are more than likely giving which is not what your friend is expecting because you have accepted a place of trust in their life as their friend. So they expect you to act like a friend, not an agenda-driven “Nice Guy”.

Another reason that you are not going to end up with the women you are preying upon, is because of number 3) BECAUSE YOU DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT HER LIKE YOU CLAIM TO (in point of fact you are preying on her)! Otherwise, her happiness would be your top priority, and for you it obviously isn’t. If it were, you wouldn’t be committing either numbers 1 or 2 on the list. You see true friendships can blossom into something much more and beautiful, but you are not a true friend. Therefore, no blossom for you. True friends don’t have an agenda behind the relationship.

Men, by and large, view women as nothing more than sexual objects, not as people. So they cannot be a true friend, because they cannot see any point to a relationship with a women that doesn’t end in sex. The “Nice Guy” guise is just one more way that asshats have come up with for reaching that end. They just don’t realize that they are asshats. In their warped way of thinking, they are going about things the honorable way. Not sure which is worse…the asshat who is openly an asshat, so at least you kind of know where you stand…or the underhanded asshat who plays at being your friend, toying with your emotions then getting all indignant when you are seen as just a friend.

Either way, it wreaks of entitlement, manipulation, and sexism. If you want to be in a relationship with someone, openly declare your intents and if they too want to give it a try, then get to know them and see how things grow. If you just want someone to fuck, then go fuck yourself!

this

FUCKING PREACH

Whoo! Dayum.  Amen! ~ waif

Andrea Dworkin  (via peppermintwolfman) (via i-am-the-lighthouse) (via naomiwaxman)

catbus:

Linked above is the story of Lillian Garland, who sued her employer for firing her after she went on leave for a few months to recover from giving birth. She won her case in the Supreme Court in 1987, 6-3. If you or someone you’re close to has worked the same job before AND after giving birth, you proabably owe this woman a thank you.